Continued from this mornings post "Will Blue Dogs Vote With GOP?", we have an update.
House Rejects Out Of Iraq Bill.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday easily defeated a bill pushed by anti-war Democrats to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by early next year.
By a vote of 255-171, the House rejected legislation pushed by the "Out of Iraq" caucus that would have started U.S. combat troop withdrawals within three months. The Pentagon would have had six more months to finish the troop movement to effectively end the four-year-old war.
The breakdown comes from CBS:
The bill drew the support of 169 Democrats and two Republicans. There were 59 Democrats and 196 Republicans opposed.
59 Democrats showed the basic common sense as well as a good survival instinct and voted against this ridiculous measure.
I am hunting the roll call now to see who the smart Democrats were, the ones that the far left unhinged will be targeting very soon, if they aren't already.
HAH, HCdl found the roll call... you can view it here.
They would rather the Blue Dogs be blue lap puppies without a mind of their own, instead of being prinicpled enough to do whats right instead of whats "popular".
Updates coming as I get more links.... keep refreshing for updated information.
[Update] The house did manage to pass the emergency funding bill, by a vote of 221 - 205, which Senate Majority leader Baghdad Reid has already said doesn't have a chance of getting passed the Senate as is.
Even Senate Democrats called the House proposal, scheduled for a vote today, unrealistic. Senate leaders met with White House officials yesterday to try to find a bipartisan option to fund the war through the summer. But there appeared to be little progress in those negotiations, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned lawmakers that the debate is beginning to delay Pentagon operations.
Roll Call can be found here.
So the house, once again, passes a "show bill" they KNOW has no chance of making it through the Senate and already are aware that even if it did it would be vetoed and there is not enough votes in the house and senate to override the veto...... deja vu anyone?
Here is more on what the Senate is prepared to do.
The Senate is working on a somewhat different bill that might provide the $100 billion in war funds at once, as the Bush administration has requested.
Bush said on Thursday he could go along with including "benchmarks" for measuring progress in Iraq. But he has not said he would support tying those benchmarks to future funding, as the House bill provides. That issue has been a subject of negotiations between the White House and Congress.
Later in the article it tells the ramifications of the games the Democrats continue to play with our troops funding.
But Senate Democrats view that two-month time frame as unrealistic. "It puts the troops on a very short leash in terms of funding, and I don't think we should do that," said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan.
After meeting with White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, said: "They have to do what they have to do." Reid said he would wait until after the House vote before deciding on Senate language.
One concern is that the conflicting House and Senate approaches could jeopardize Democrats' goal of delivering a final package to Bush before the Memorial Day recess. Democrats are eager to avoid political pitfalls that could occur if troop funding begins to run out.
Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday that the drawn-out debate over the bill is already forcing the Pentagon to curtail contracts and hiring and to stop funding some programs in order to sustain troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We could probably fund the war into July, but I would tell you, the impact on the Department of Defense in terms of disruption and canceled contracts and programs would be huge if we had to do that," Gates told the panel.
If the funding was not approved in July, Gates said he would have to "shut down significant elements of the Department of Defense in August and September because I wouldn't have the money to pay salaries." .
Is it any wonder the Democrats are seen as anti-militray, anti-troops and weak on National Security?
They continue to play games with our troops funding and lives, and this may very well be the day that they lost the 2008 elections by showing the American people they care more about political games than they do our troops.
[Update] Sure enough the far left crazies are already targeting Democrats that voted against the out of Iraq bill.
The Agonist and the pigs.....ummmm, newhogs, oh wait a minutes they changed their name to newshoggers, thats right.
Thats right people, keep eating your own, you know, the ones that got you INTO the majority.
[Update #2] The targeting continues via MyDD and Eschaton.
Update [2007-5-10 18:12:46 by Matt Stoller]: And it goes down by 255-171. Hoyer votes against, Pelosi for. That's a pretty good number of progressives, and a good showing. And now we have people on the record for or against the war.
Atrios has a list of freshmen Dems who voted against this.
Giffords
McNerney
Mahoney
Donnelly
Ellsworth
Hill
Boyda
Shuler
Wilson
Space
Altmire
Carney
Lampson
Rodriguez
Most of the new Dems backed the amendment, including every winner on the netroots page except McNerney (who is losing his base). On a note of pique, I'll add that Ciro Rodriguez was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign in 2006. I'm embarrassed to have supported him last year and I'm embarrassed for him now. Most of the others are Rahm-bots.
Thats it boys and girls, target the Moderates and end up losing the seats right back to the Republicans, we always did say ya'll know how to stab yourselves in the back or shoot yourselves in the head better than we could ever do it.
Have at it and THANKS for doing the work for us, we DO appreciate it muchly.
.
